Determination of Minimum Infusion Rate and Cardiorespiratory Effects of Total Intravenous Anesthesia of Ketofol With or Without Lidocaine, Fentanyl or Dexmedetomidine in Dogs

Hadi Imani Rastabi (  [email protected] ) Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz Hadi Naddaf Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz Bahman Mosallanejad Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz Mahmood Khannejad Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz Majid Keramat Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

Research Article

Keywords: Canine, Recovery, Respiratory depression, TIVA

Posted Date: January 27th, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-150070/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License

Page 1/19 Abstract

Background: Ketofol is a 1:1 mixture of ketamine and propofol that has been proposed for induction and maintenance of anesthesia aiming to provide more cardiovascular stability and less undesirable impacts compared to the use of propofol and ketamine alone. However, it has been associated with exacerbated respiratory depression in dogs. Diminishing the dose of ketofol may improve cardiovascular effects and attenuate respiratory depression. The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of adding lidocaine, fentanyl or dexmedetomidine at the required dose and cardiorespiratory variables in dogs undergoing total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with ketofol. In phase I, twelve dogs were induced and maintained with two out of four anesthetic regimens of KET: ketofol (4 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg/min, respectively), KLD; ketofol and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg and 0.25 mg/kg/min, respectively), KFN: ketofol and fentanyl (LD: 5 µg/kg and 0.1 µg/kg/min, respectively) and KDX: ketofol and dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg and 2 mg/kg/h, respectively). Minimum infusion rate (MIR) of ketofol was determined in this phase. Subsequently, in phase II, other twelve dogs were given the same anesthetic regimens for 60 min similar to the previous phase, except the infusion rate of ketofol. Cardiorespiratory variables were recorded in predetermined interval.

Results: In phase I, mean MIR of ketofol for KET, KLD, KFN and KDX were determined to have decreasing manner as 0.35, 0.23, 0.15, and 0.08 mg/kg/min, respectively. In phase II, the times of recovery events were shorter in KFN and KDX than KET and KLD. Notably, HR was signifcantly higher than baseline during anesthesia in KET and KLD, which also was signifcantly lower than baseline in KFN and KDX at several time points. Signifcant higher values of MAP were observed over time in KDX. In all treatments, there was a decrease in respiratory rate and pH as well as an increase in PCO2 during the anesthesia session.

Conclusions: It was concluded that despite decreasing the dose of ketofol, none of the added drugs attenuated respiratory depression caused by ketofol.

Background

Inhalation anesthesia requires some specialized equipment to deliver oxygen and remove carbon dioxide gas. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) does not require such facilities, so it can be considered as a substitute for inhalation anesthesia, particularly in short-duration anesthesia as well as in minimally invasive procedures or diagnostic imaging [1]. This technique is going to be more popular, especially with new generations of anesthetic agents that having short acting and non-cumulative properties and with the advent of modern technologies providing facilities for having drugs with more efcient constant rate infusion (CRI) [2].

Propofol is the most injectable anesthetic used for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. This drug has rapid onset, short duration and slow recovery; however, it was shown that it can be associated with dose-dependent respiratory depression and hypotension [3-6]. Ketamine is another common

Page 2/19 anesthetic drug used for small animals. Anesthesia accompanied by ketamine result in an increase in heart rate, blood pressure and cardiac output. It may also lead to muscle stiffness, convulsion and eventful recovery [1].

Combination of propofol and ketamin has been proposed to be used for TIVA diminishing the doses required for each drug and subsequently providing more stable cardiorespiratory variables along with less unpleasant consequences. Notably, Ketofol is a combination of 1:1 propofol and ketamine in a single syringe. Human studies revealed that ketofol could increased hemodynamic stability [7] and decrease complications rates associated either with propofol or with ketamine [8, 9]. In a study performed on dogs, TIVA with ketofol resulted in higher heart rate (HR) and acceptable mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared to the administration of propofol alone; meanwhile, the respiratory depression was more pronounced in ketofol treatment than propofol [1]. Respiratory depression has also been observed in those dogs induced either with ketofol alone or in combination with diazepam or midazolam [10, 11].

Various drugs have been used in combination to anesthetic agents to provide a balanced anesthesia with the beneft of the reduced dose of the used drug(s), and subsequently, to avoid unpleasant effects associated with each one. Lidocaine is an amino amide local anesthetic reducing the amount of inhalant anesthetic drugs with no signifcant cardiovascular impacts [12, 13]. The infusion of lidocaine with ketamine in dogs undergoing TIVA with propofol has diminished the dose rate of propofol [2]. Fentanyl is a pure µ opioid agonist that has rapid and short-lived impacts. It was indicated that fentanyl has reduced the minimum alveolar concentration of volatile anesthetics [14-16] and the induction dose and minimum infusion rate (MIR) of propofol and alfaxalone in the dogs [17, 18]. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a potent alpha-2 adrenergic agonist used due to its sedative and analgesics effects on dogs [19]. Moreover, DEX has been shown to reduce the dose of anesthetic agents needed for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia [20-22].

Since no published study on evaluating the effect of CRI of ketofol with either lidocaine, fentanyl or DEX on dogs was found, the present study was designed to determine the MIR and the accompanied cardiovascular alterations in dogs receiving CRI of ketofol combined with lidocaine, fentanyl or DEX. In this regard, we hypothesized that addition of either employed drugs to ketofol, via signifcant reduction in the dose rate of ketofol, would result in the improved cardiovascular variables and respiratory function.

Methods

The present investigation was designed as a blind randomized (https://www.randomizer.org) prospective experimental study. Twenty-four mongrel male dogs weighing 19.1 ± 3.1 kg and aged 1.5-2.5 years old, belonged to a private shelter designed for the protection of stray dogs, were selected and then transferred to the Veterinary Hospital at least one week before the initiation of the study. The animals were kept in separate cages, fed with the same diet, and had free access to water. The dog’s health status was confrmed by a thorough physical examination, complete blood count and total protein measurements. If any dog was considered not to have status I, according to American Society of Anesthesiologists

Page 3/19 physical status, would have been excluded from the study. Other exclusion criteria were pregnancy, aggressive behavior and extremely fat or slim. Thereafter, the dogs were fasted for 12 hours, but they had free access to water for up to 2 hours before the anesthesia session. The Ethical Committee of our university has approved all the procedures performed in the current study.

The present study was conducted in two phases:

Phase I- Determination of MIR of ketofol

Twelve dogs were studied in this phase. On the day of the experiment, the animals were given a combination of acepromazine (0.025 mg/kg; Neurotranq, Alfasan, Woerden, Holland) and morphine (0.25 mg/kg; Morphine Sulfate, Daru Pakhsh, Iran) intramuscularly. Thirty minutes later, the animals were transferred to a surgical table and the cephalic veins of both forelimbs (for drug and serum administration) and the dorsal metatarsal artery of the left hindlimb (for blood samples collection) were catheterized using an appropriate catheters’ size. The animals received 100% oxygen (2 L/min) with a mask for 5 minutes. By passing 40 minutes from sedatives injection, the dogs received either of the following anesthesia regimens:

1- KET: induction by bolus injection of ketofol (4 mg/kg) followed by an IV bolus of 2 mL normal saline and the maintenance by CRI of ketofol (0.3 mg/kg/min) and normal saline (0.0125 mL/kg/min),

2- KLD: induction by bolus injection of ketofol (4 mg/kg) followed by an IV bolus of lidocaine (loading dose (LD); 1.5 mg/kg ;Lignodic 2%, Caspian Tamin, Iran) and the maintenance by CRI of ketofol (0.3 mg/kg/min) and lidocaine (0.25 mg/kg/min).

3- KFN: induction by bolus injection of ketofol (4 mg/kg) followed by an IV bolus of fentanyl (LD: 5 µg/kg; Fentanyl 0.005%, Caspian Tamin, Iran) and the maintenance by CRI of ketofol (0.3 mg/kg/min) and fentanyl (0.1 µg/kg/min).

4- KDX: induction by bolus injection of ketofol (4 mg/kg) followed by an IV bolus of DEX (LD: 2 µg/kg; Precedex 100 µg/mL, Hospira, USA) and the maintenance by CRI of ketofol (0.3 mg/kg/min) and DEX (2 mg/kg/h).

Each dog received two out of four treatments with at least one-week interval. The preparation process of ketofol was performed according to the study by Kennedy and Smith [1]. Ketofol and the accompanied drugs’ infusions were performed using a syringe infusion device (Medifusion, DS-3000, South Korea) and a burette infusion microset (60 drops:1 mL; Shanchuan medical instrument Co. China), respectively. Afterwards, LD of lidocaine, fentanyl and DEX were diluted to the fnal volume of 2 mL using normal saline.

After the induction of anesthesia, the trachea was intubated using a proper-sized cuffed endotracheal tube, which was then connected to a rebreathing anesthetic system delivering oxygen at 2 L/min. The dogs were positioned in sternal recumbency and allowed to breathe spontaneously. All the animals

Page 4/19 received normal saline at the dose rate of 10 mL/kg/h from the induction of anesthesia until the complete removal of the tracheal tube. It was attempted to maintain dogs’ rectal temperature at 37-38 °C from anesthesia induction until the removal of the tracheal tube using a blanket and two warm water bags that were placed over and at both sides of the animals, respectively.

For determining MIR of ketofol, a noxious stimulus was applied between the fngers of the animal using a hemostat forceps closed at the frst ratchet for 2-3 seconds. If the dog had no purposeful movement, the infusion rate was reduced by 0.05 mL/kg/min. In contrast, if the dog had any purposeful movement, the infusion rate was increased by 0.05 mL/kg/min. The dog remained at the new rate for 10 minutes and then painful stimulation was applied once again. This process continued until there were two stimuli that caused and did not cause purposeful movements. MIR was calculated based on the arithmetic average of the two above-mentioned rates. Purposeful movement is defned as any movement leading to an obvious movement of the head and trunk as well as limb’s withdrawal. Tremor and twitching were not considered as purposeful movements.

Arterial blood sampling was done by passing at 40 minutes from sedation (before the induction of anesthesia), 5 and 15 minutes after the induction of anesthesia, and then every 15 minutes until obtaining MIR. In this phase, no data were recorded except infusion rate were recorded. The blood samples were discarded with no further analysis. Ketoprofen (2 mg/kg) was postoperatively administered to all the dogs q24h for a 2-day.

Phase 2- Determination of anesthesia scores, recovery times and cardiorespiratory effects

Twelve other dogs were used in this phase. Sedation, instrumentation, dogs’ monitoring and ketofol preparation were done as described earlier for phase 1. Thereafter, dogs were then randomly assigned either to receive the two treatments of KET, KLD, KFN, or KDX with one week for washout. The rate of ketofol was selected based on the results obtained from the frst phase. Anesthesia was maintained for 60 min and then the infusion was disrupted, but oxygen supplementation was continued until extubation. The removal of tracheal tube was done once swallowing refex returned or tongue movement was seen.

During anesthesia session, hypotension (MAP<60 mmHg) was treated frst by a crystalloid bolus (15 mL/kg in about 10 min), and secondly in non-responsive situation by dopamine infusion (5 µg/kg/min). Bradycardia (HR<40 beats/min) was treated by atropine (0.04 mg/kg) as needed. If apnea was seen for more than 5 minutes or ETCO2 was >55 mmHg, intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) would be performed to restore ETCO2 within the normal range (i.e. 35-45 mmHg).

In this phase, sedation, anesthesia induction, and recovery qualities were scored in terms of the following scoring systems: sedation quality: 1- no sedation, 2- mild sedation, 3- moderate sedation, and 4- heavy sedation; induction quality: 1- no sign of excitement, intubation within 60 seconds after the administration of ketofol; 2- mild signs of excitement, some struggle during intubation; and 3- hyperkinesia, restlessness, no intubation; and recovery quality: 1- no struggling, standing and walking with no difculty; 2- some struggling, long-lasting sternal recumbency; 3- sever struggling, inability to be in

Page 5/19 sternal recumbency or to walk. The times for tracheal intubation, the removal of the tracheal tube, uprising the head, sternal recumbency and ability to stand (at least for 10 seconds without assistance) were recorded. HR (via SPO2 probe connected to the tongue), blood pressure (invasive arterial blood pressure using a manometer attached to the catheter of dorsal metatarsal artery), respiratory rate (via a capnograph, fR), and rectal temperature (via a probe connected to the mucus of rectum with the same insertion length in all the included dogs, RT) were recorded. HR, lead II electrocardiogram (EKG), fR and RT were recorded using a multiparameter monitoring system (Vitapia 7000KV, Trismed, South Korea). Correspondingly, the above-mentioned variables were continuously measured but they were recorded at 40 minutes after sedative administration (before induction of anesthesia), and also at 5, 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes after the induction of anesthesia.

For blood gas analysis, a 1 mL arterial blood sample was taken via the dorsal metatarsal artery catheter at each time point similar to hemodynamic variables except for before the induction. For blood collection, at frst, a 1 mL blood was withdrawn in a syringe, then a 1 mL additional blood was taken in another 1-mL syringe containing 0.1 mL heparin (Heparodic 5000, Caspian Tamin, Iran), and then the frst collected blood plus 1 mL normal saline were slowly injected into the artery. Blood gas analysis was performed using a calibrated gas analyzer (EDAN i15, China).

All the drug’ calculations and injections were done by one investigator (H.I.R). Two other investigators (M.K and M.K) who were unaware of the treatments have scored sedation, intubation and recovery, and also measured and recorded data. Ketoprofen (2 mg/kg) was postoperatively administered to all the dogs q24h for a 3-days period.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 24 (IBM Corporation, USA). Normal distribution of data was assessed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. For normally distributed data, repeated measure for ANOVA (followed by Bonferroni’s teat as needed) was used to compare the changes between and within the treatments. Friedman test was also used to compare the data on sedation quality, induction and recovery between the treatments. Parametric and non-parametric data were expressed as mean (standard deviation (SD)) and median (maximum=minimum), respectively. The statistically signifcance level of the data was considered as p <0.05. The power of the study by considering α of 0.05 was greater than 80% for all variables, which was determined by G*Power software version 3.1.9.7 (Universität Kiel, Germany).

Results

Phase 1

There was no signifcant difference between the treatments with respect to body weights (17.3 ± 2.7 kg, 17.1 ± 2.9 kg, 19.4 ± 3.5 kg and 17.3 ± 2.2 kg in KET and KLD, KFN and KDX treatments, respectively; p>0.05). In case of MIR, the addition of lidocaine, fentanyl or DEX to ketofol reduced the MIR of ketofol by

Page 6/19 37%, 50% and 80%, respectively. The MIR of ketofol was 0.35 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min for KET, 0.23 ± 0.03 mg/kg/min for KLD, 0.15 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min for KFN and 0.08 + 0.02 mg/kg/min for KDX (p=0.001). The dose rates of 0.35, 0.23, 0.15 and 0.06 mg/kg/min were selected as the infusion rates of ketofol for KET, KLD, KFN and KDX for phase 2, respectively.

Phase 2

Two dogs in the KLD, four dogs in KFN and four dogs in KDX treatments showed apnea immediately after the induction of anesthesia. Accordingly, these dogs required IPPV until the return of spontaneous breathing (30 and 50 minutes for KLD, 45 minutes for KFN and 30 and 45 minutes for KDX). The other dogs well tolerated anesthesia in all the treatments without no complication. Follow up for 2 weeks post anesthesia sessions reveal no adverse effect related to anesthesia. The weights of dogs were 21.3 ± 3.3 kg (KET) 21.5 ± 3.0 kg (KLD), 16.1 ± 1.1 kg (KFN) and 18.4 ± 2.5 kg with no signifcant difference between the treatments (p>0.05).

The scores for sedation, induction and recovery qualities are summarized in Table 1. Overall, sedation, induction and recovery were acceptable in all the dogs and no noticeable complication was detected in any treatment. Although the induction and recovery scores gained higher quality in more dogs in KFN compared to KDX, no signifcant differences were detected regarding to evaluated qualities in the treatments (p>0.05). Table 2 shows the determined events in the recovery time. The times of head uprising and sternal recumbency were signifcantly shorter in KFN compared to those of KLD (p=0.038 and 0.003, respectively). Besides, the time of ability to stand was signifcantly lower in KFN and KDX than KLD (p=0.016 and 0.001, respectively).

Table 1- Median (maximum-minimum) scores of sedation, induction and recovery qualities in anesthetized dogs received ketofol (KET) and ketofol plus lidocaine (KLD), fentanyl (KFN) or dexmedetomidine (KDX)

Variable Sedation Induction Recovery

Treatment

KET 2 (1-3) 1 (1-2) 2 (1-2)

KLD 2 (1-3) 1 (1-3) 2 (1-3)

KFN 2 (1-2) 1 (1-2) 1 (1-3)

KDX 2 (1-2) 1 (1-1) 1 (1-2)

Table 2- Mean ± SD times (min) of recovery events of recurrent events in anesthetized dogs received ketofol (KET) and ketofol plus lidocaine (KLD), fentanyl (KFN) or dexmedetomidine (KDX)

Page 7/19 Events Extubation Head uprising Sternal recumbency Ability to stand Treatments

KET 20.7 ± 9.6 32.2 ± 12.8 55.4 ± 31.5 74.8 ± 17.5

KLD 25.5 ± 11.5 52.3 ± 21.4 64.8 ± 20.2 88.0 ± 6.4

KFN 17.8 ± 11.8 24.4 ± 13.0 * 34.8 ± 17.0 * 47.2 ± 24.0 *

KDX 17.0 ± 4.6 28.6 ± 4.8 40.6 ± 4.4 50.6 ± 6.0 *

* Signifcantly difference from KLD (p<0.05)

The data related to hemodynamic assessments are shown in Table 3. Comparison of HR among the treatments showed signifcantly lower values at anesthesia in KDX and KFN compared to those of KET (p≤0.022 and p≤0.049, respectively). At 45 minutes of anesthesia, HR in KLD was signifcantly higher than KET (p=0.029). In KET and KLD treatments, HR was signifcantly higher than those of baseline at all the time points during anesthesia (p≤0.029 for KET and p≤0.013 for KLD). HR was signifcantly lower in KDX treatment than baseline at several time points (p≤0.042). MAP showed signifcant differences in KDX compared to KLD and KFN at 5 minutes (p=0.022 and 0.005, respectively) and between KDX and KLD at 60 after induction (p=0.044). In KDX treatment, signifcant higher values of MAP was observed over time compared to baseline (p≤ 0.049). For fR, there were signifcant differences between KET and

KLD compared to KFN and KDX at 5, 15 and 30 minutes after induction (p≤0.49). Although fR decreased in all the treatments over time, signifcant differences were detected in KFN (p≤0.029) and KDX (p≤0.047) over time. The average RT values during anesthesia session were calculated as 37.1, 37.0, 37.5 and 37.6 ˚C for KET, KLD, KFN and KDX, respectively, with no signifcant differences between them (p>0.05). EKG assessment revealed occasionally sinus arrhythmia and S-T depression in KET and KLD. Second and third degree atrioventricular heart blocks were observed in KFN and KDX in several cases.

Table 3- Mean ± SD heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and respiratory rate (fR) in anesthetized dogs received ketofol (KET) and ketofol plus lidocaine (KLD) , fentanyl (KFN) or dexmedetomidine (KDX)

Page 8/19 Variable Treatment Time (min)

Baseline 5 15 30 45 60

HR KET 59 ± 10 110 ± 24 119 ± 29 106 ± 14 100 ± 18 107 ± 16 A, a A, a A, a A, a A, a

KLD 60 ± 8 122 ± 18 124 ± 15 125 ± 7 A, 127 ± 8 116 ± 13 A,B, a A, B a B, a B, a A, B, a

KFN 75 ± 14 62 ± 13 B 56 ± 19 B 57 ± 19 B 51 ± 8 B 58 ± 8 B

KDX 68 ± 4 55 ± 4 B, 48 ± 6 B 47 ± 8 B, 49 ± 7 B, 50 ± 4 B, a a a

MAP KET 87 ± 7 95 ± 25 A, 96 ± 29 99 ± 33 100 ± 32 96 ± 21 A, B B

KLD 91 ± 26 77 ± 19 B 81 ± 24 83 ± 22 71 ± 13 70 ± 13 B

KFN 101 ± 4 92 ± 4 B 95 ± 6 94 ± 3 89 ± 1 90 ± 2 A, B

KDX 75 ± 10 114 ± 6 A, 109 ± 9 a 105 ± 8 a 101 ± 8 99 ± 10 A, a a a

fR KET 15 ± 2 10 ± 3 A 10 ± 4 A 9 ± 3 A 8 ± 3 9 ± 3 KLD 12 ± 4 11 ± 7 A 10 ± 5 A 7 ± 1 A 6 ± 1 6 ± 1

KFN 17 ± 4 4 ± 4 a 5 ± 2 a 4 ± 1 a 7 ± 3 a 9 ± 7

KDX 15 ± 3 5 ± 1 a 4 ± 1 a 5 ± 2 a 6 ± 3 a 7 ± 3

Different uppercase indicate signifcant differences among treatments (p < 0.05), Different lowercase indicate signifcant differences from baseline (p < 0.05)

The data related to the results of blood gas analysis are shown in table 4. PCO2 in KLD treatment at 60 minutes after anesthesia were signifcantly higher than those of other treatments (p≤0.038). Glucose level was signifcantly lower in KFN than other treatments (p≤0.026). pH at 5, 15 and 30 min after induction of anesthesia in KET treatment (p=0.029, 0.031 and 0.006, respectively), at 30 and 60 min after induction of anesthesia in KLD treatment (p=0.029, 0.007, respectively), and at 30 and 60 minutes in KDX (p=0.001, 0.008, respectively) was signifcantly lower than baseline. Partial arterial pressure of oxygen

(PO2) was signifcantly higher in all the treatments throughout the anesthesia than baseline values (p≤0.001). PCO2 was signifcantly higher during anesthesia in KET and KLD compared to baseline (p≤0.009 for KET and p≤0.035 for KLD). PCO2 has also gained signifcant higher values at 45 min in KFN (p=0.001) and at 30, 45 and 60 min in KDX (p≤0.012). Bicarbonate (HCO3-) was higher in the KET treatment at 5 and15 min after induction of anesthesia compared to baseline (p=0.026 and 0.015, respectively). Glucose level was signifcantly lower at 45 and 60 min in KFN (p=0.047 and p=0.049, respectively) and was signifcantly higher at 60 min of anesthesia in KDX (p=0.026) compared to the baseline values.

Page 9/19 Table 4- Mean ± SD times (min) of blood gas variables in anesthetized dogs received ketofol (KET) and ketofol plus lidocaine (KLD), fentanyl (KFN) or dexmedetomidine (KDX)

Page 10/19 Variable Treatment Time (min)

Baseline 5 15 30 60 pH KET 7.35 ± 7.28 ± 0.01 7.26 ± 0.04 7.26 ± 0.02 7.27 ± 0.03 0.02 a a a

KLD 7.34 ± 7.30 ± 0.01 7.24 ± 0.04 7.24 ± 0.03 7.23 ± 0.01 0.03 a a

KFN 7.36 ± 0.3 7.34 ± 0.04 7.32 ± 0.3 7.33 ± 0.05 7.29 ± 0.04

KDX 7.33 ± 7.29 ± 0.04 7.27 ± 0.05 7.25 ± 0.01 7.24 ± 0.03 0.02 A a

PO2 (mmHg) KET 97 ± 3 486 ± 87 a 566 ± 99 a 528 ± 87 a 549 ± 59 a

KLD 95 ± 4 452 ± 104 492 ± 86 a 530 ± 49 a 492 ± 50 a a

KFN 93 ± 5 584 ± 50 a 541 ± 54 a 566 ± 46 a 590 ± 60 a

KDX 91 ± 4 566 ± 37 a 543 ± 44 a 536 ± 62 a 545 ± 14 a

PCO2 KET 34 ± 5.9 47.8 ± 6.1 a 49.5 ± 5.7 a 53.1 ± 4.6 a 52.1 ± 7.3 a (mmHg) KLD 36.8 ± 4.4 45.0 ± 5.6 a 51.6 ± 5.9 a 56.5 ± 3.7 a 59.3 ± 3.5 * a

KFN 37.5 ± 3.9 41.8 ± 6.9 46.1 ± 6.2 51.9 ± 5.9 a 44.05 ± 9.9

KDX 35.2 ± 4.8 41.4 ± 3.6 48.8 ± 4.6 a 46.9 ± 6.9 a 51.0 ± 3.1 a

HCO3- KET 19.4 ± 2.7 23.8 ± 2.3 a 23.9 ± 1.5 a 23.5 ± 1.5 22.2 ± 1.7 KLD 18.4 ± 3.4 22.0 ± 0.6 22.8 ± 1.1 22.7 ± 1.9 25.1 ± 2.3

KFN 20.9 ± 2.2 22.1 ± 2.6 20.9 ± 3.8 21.9 ± 2.7 21.6 ± 3.2

KDX 17.4 ± 3.6 18.6 ± 2.7 18.2 ± 4.4 19.2 ± 2.9 20.3 ± 3.2

BE KET -6.1 ± 2.6 -2.4 ± 2.4 - 3.4 ± 1.5 -4.3 ± 2.6 -5.3 ± 3.1

KLD -6.7 ± 2.2 -4.6 ± 0.7 -5.0 ± 2.1 -5.4 ± 2.0 -4.6 ± 3.5

KFN -4.5 ± 2.4 -3.6 ± 2.5 -5.5 ± 3.8 -4.3 ± 2.5 -5.1 ± 2.5

KDX -6.7 ± 2.9 -6.3 ± 1.2 -5.6 ± 4.4 -7.6 ± 2.9 -6.7 ± 3.4

Glucose KET 82 ± 11 90 ± 14 86 ± 6 85 ± 10 79 ± 7

KLD 89 ± 8 77 ± 8 89 ± 8 92 ± 11 94 ± 10

KFN 89 ± 12 86 ± 12 78 ± 6 70 ± 8 a 66 ± 3 A, a

Page 11/19 KDX 75 ± 6 81 ± 5 88 ± 11 81 ± 6 102 ± 13 a

Lactate KET 4.5 ±2.3 5.3 ± 2.4 5.1 ± 1.2 4.5 ± 3.0 4.3 ± 1.0

KLD 4.7 ± 2.1 4.0 ± .9 3.8 ± 1.3 3.8 ± 1.2 4.4 ± 2.4

KFN 6.2 ± 0.9 5.2 ± 0.8 6.0 ± 1.5 5.5 ± 0.3 6.0 ± 1.1

KDX 4.9 ± 1.5 6.1 ± 1.3 3.8 ± 0.4 4.1 ± 1.2 3.4 ± 0.7

Different uppercase indicate signifcant differences among treatments (p < 0.05), Different lowercase indicate signifcant differences from baseline (p < 0.05)

Discussion

The dose of ketofol to induce anesthesia (i.e. 4 mg/kg) was selected as the same dose used in the study by Kennedy and Smith [1] of TIVA with ketofol in dogs. The dose of ketofol for the maintenance of anesthesia in the aforementioned study was 0.3 ± 0.1 mg/kg/ min, which is comparable to the dose of ketofol in the KET treatment (i.e. 0.35 mg/kg/min) in the present study. The doses of lidocaine, fentanyl and DEX were chosen based on some previous investigations performed on dogs [2, 18, 23, 24].

In the present study, the addition of lidocaine to ketofol diminished the MIR of ketofol by 37% (0.35 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min for KET vs. 0.23 ± 0.03 mg/kg/min for KLD). Mannarino et al. [2] reported that the addition of intravenous infusion of lidocaine led to a decrease of 18% in MIR of propofol in dogs: nevertheless, this difference was not statistically signifcant. However, in the aforementioned study, concomitant infusion of ketamine and lidocaine to propofol reduced the MIR of propofol by 37%. It has also been shown that co-administration of lidocaine to animals undergoing inhalation anesthesia could reduce the minimum alveolar concentration by 10 to 45% [12, 13, 25, 26]. The mechanism by which lidocaine reduce the amount of anesthetic agents has not been well elucidated yet. Of note, the ability of lidocaine to reduce the magnitude of anesthetics agents has been attributed to both sedative [27] and analgesic properties [28] of lidocaine.

Fentanyl decreased the MIR of ketofol by 50%. This decline was expectable in MIR of ketofol; however, the magnitude of this decrease is of more importance. There are several reports in dogs indicating the effect of fentanyl on decreasing MAC of volatile anesthetics (in a range of 35-66%) [14-16]. It has been proposed that co-administration of propofol and fentanyl would be more potent in the reduction of the amount of anesthetic agents than that of the combination use of an inhaled anesthetic and fentanyl. In addition, fentanyl has diminished propofol requirement for the prevention of movement by about 51 and 63% following the application of low (0.1 µg/kg/min) and high (0.2 µg/kg/min) doses, respectively [18]. By comparing fentanyl and lidocaine, it was appeared that fentanyl is able to decrease the MIR of ketofol more than that of lidocaine. This fnding is in accordance with the results of the study by Steagal et al. [14] who reported a greater sparing effect of fentanyl on dogs anesthetized with isofurane than lidocaine.

Page 12/19 In the current study, DEX diminished the MIR of ketofol more enormously (i.e. 80%) compared to lidocaine (i.e. 37%) and fentanyl (i.e. 50%). DEX has been found to decrease MAC of halothane and isofurane in dogs up to 90% and 60% dose-dependently, respectively [21, 22]. Two other studies have also reported a reduction in MAC of isofurane by 86% [29] and 89% [30]. DEX appears to be superior to lidocaine and fentanyl in terms of MIR reduction of ketofol. Consistent with the results of the current study, in a study conducted on pigs, the combination use of ketamine-propofol-DEX has been observed to have more analgesic properties compared to the time when fentanyl was substituted to DEX [31].

The evaluation of induction and recovery qualities showed no signifcant differences among the treatments; however, the median recovery score were lower in the KET and KLD than those of KFN and KDX. The recovery events generally took longer times to occur in KLD treatment. Mannarino et al. [2] have also reported a prolonged recovery period in dogs anesthetized with propofol and lidocaine compared to propofol alone. The prolonged elapsed time to extubation and standing have also been reported in dogs anesthetized with sevofurane and high doses of lidocaine [12]. Although the cause of this observation was not clearly investigated in dogs, lidocaine-induced sedation as a reason for the prolonged recovery and lidocaine-induced muscle relaxation as a cause of poor quality of recovery have been proposed in horses (Valverde et al., 2005). A similar mechanism might also play a role in the dogs. In case of lower recovery times in KFN and KDX, lower infusion rate of ketofol seems attributable as the main reason; however, despite a signifcant reduction in the rate of propofol infusion, Davis et al. [18], found no difference with respect to the time to walk between propofol and propofol-fentanyl anesthesia in dogs.

In the present experiment, heart rate signifcantly increased in both KET and KLD treatments over time compared to baseline. Furthermore, in both treatments, MAP was relatively stable during anesthesia compared to baseline. Accordingly, these results are consistent with those of previous studies in which co-administration of ketamine and propofol or using ketofol lead to the increased heart rate and improved blood pressure in dogs compared to the administration of propofol alone [1, 32, 33]. The observed result can be attributed to the cardiovascular effects of ketamine, which results in higher HR and MAP through catecholamine release [34]. However, the addition of lidocaine or lidocaine-ketamine to dogs under propofol anesthesia did not alter the effects of propofol on HR and MAP [2].

HR and MAP in KFN treatment remained relatively stable during anesthesia, which were near to the baseline values. Even though propofol has been proposed to decrease HR dose-dependently via vagal stimulation [35] and to provide stable MAP [36], we did not expect such a great impact of fentanyl on ketofol when compared to the results obtained from the KET and KLD treatments. It seems that fentanyl has blunted the potential beneft of ketamine on HR in KFN. The same scenario has just happened for KDX. Those dogs treated with ketofol and DEX showed a mild decrease in HR and an increase in MAP during anesthesia session compared to baseline. DEX has shown to be associated with bradycardia and hypertension in dogs through parasympathetic activity and vasoconstriction property, respectively [37]. Again, we predicted that ketamine is able to prevent the decrease in HR following the DEX administration, but it appears that DEX effects were predominant over ketamine. The results regarding HR in KFN and KLD is highly likely due to the tremendous decrease of MIR of ketofol in these treatments, which

Page 13/19 subsequently resulted in a great decrease in the magnitude of ketamine to a level that was not effective enough to impact cardiovascular alterations signifcantly.

In the present study, the respiratory rate was non-signifcantly lower in KET and KLD and signifcantly lower in KFN and KDX during anesthesia compared to baseline. Additionally, there was a signifcant decrease in pH and a signifcant increase in PCO2 during anesthesia compared to the baseline values in these four treatments. The decreased respiratory rate, the decreased pH and the increased PCO2 are known as the indicators of respiratory depression, which has occurred in all the treatments. The depressant effect of the propofol and ketamine combination on respiratory system has been documented in previous studies [1, 33, 38]. It seems that ketamine and propofol when used concurrently has an additive depressant effect on respiration [1]. Propofol decreases the ventilatory response to CO2 and arterial hypoxemia by affecting central chemoreceptors [39]. On the other side, ketamine also affects the ventilatory response to CO2 depending on the concentration of the drug in the central nervous system [40]. In addition, ketamine μ opioid receptors’ effects can also lead to respiratory depression [41].

Respiratory depression did not decrease despite ketofol dose reduction in the KLD, KFN and KDX treatments. Besides, it seems that respiratory depression tended to be more severe in those dogs receiving lidocaine. Intravenous infusion of lidocaine in the dogs anesthetized with isofurane did not change the respiratory rate and the other related parameters [14, 42]. The reason for lidocaine depressant effect on ketofol is still unclear for the authors and needs to be more investigated by further studies. Respiratory depression was also detected in KFN and KDX. Respiratory depression has been reported in the dogs receiving fentanyl and isofurane anesthesia [43, 44]. Opioids has been shown to affect hypoxia and hypercapnia responses in the brainstem resulting in observing the prevalent respiratory depression with almost all opioids [45]. For DEX, similar to other alpha-2 agonists, although it may be considered as free of respiratory effects, its combination with other sedative and anesthetic agents has been proposed to result in respiratory depression [46], as seen in the current study.

Conclusions

The addition of lidocaine, fentanyl or DEX in the used doses’ rates reduced the MIR of TIVA with ketofol in the dogs. The magnitude of this reduction was the greatest for DEX and the lowest for lidocaine. Those dogs that received lidocaine showed better preservation on HR than those that were administered with fentanyl and DEX. Notably, all three added drugs resulted in respiratory depression during anesthesia. A reduction in the dose of ketofol even as much higher as for DEX, was not able to attenuate respiratory depression induced by ketofol and because of tremendous reduction in ketamine’s dose, it might be associated with some unpleasant cardiovascular consequences.

Abbreviations

MIR: Minimum Infusion Rate; LD: Loading Dose; HR: Heart Rate; MAP: Minimum Arterial Blood Pressure, fR: Respiratory Rate; RT: Rectal Temperature; EKG: Electrocardiogram

Page 14/19 Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Mr. Tab and Mr. Noruzi, the technicians of Department of Anesthesiology and Surgery, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, for their kind help in performing the study.

Authors’ contributions

HIR: conception, study design, data analysis and drafting the manuscript; HN: study design and revise the manuscript; BM: data analysis and interpretation of data; M.Khannejad and M.Keramat: data acquisition and analysis. All authors approved the fnal manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by a grant from Research Council of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information fles].

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All the dogs belonged to a private shelter designed for the protection of stray dogs. An informed consent were obtained from shelter owners accepting the use of animals in this experiment. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The Ethical Committee of our university, which covers ARRIVE guidelines, has approved all the procedures performed in the current study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. Kennedy MJ, Smith LJ: A comparison of cardiopulmonary function, recovery quality, and total dosages required for induction and total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus a propofol- ketamine combination in healthy Beagle dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2015,42(4):350–359. 2. Mannarino R, Luna SP, Monteiro ER, Beier SL, Castro VB: Minimum infusion rate and hemodynamic effects of propofol, propofol-lidocaine and propofol‐lidocaine‐ketamine in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. Page 15/19 2012,39(2):160–173. 3. Aguiar AJ, Luna SP, Oliva VN, Eugênio FR, Castro GB: Continuous infusion of propofol in dogs premedicated with methotrimeprazine. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2001,28(4):220–224. 4. Nagashima Y, Furukawa Y, Chiba S: Propofol decreases contractility of isolated blood-perfused left ventricular muscle in the dog. J Anesth. 2000,14(1):45–47. 5. Nagashima Y, Furukawa Y, Hirose M, Chiba S: Cardiac effects of propofol and its interaction with autonomic nervous system in isolated, cross-circulated canine atria. J Anesth. 1999,13(1):34–39. 6. Pagel PS, Warltier DC: Negative inotropic effects of propofol as evaluated by the regional preload recruitable stroke work relationship in chronically instrumented dogs. Anesthesiology. 1993,78(1):100–108. 7. Smischney NJ, Beach ML, Loftus RW, Dodds TM, Koff MD: Ketamine/propofol admixture (ketofol) is associated with improved hemodynamics as an induction agent: a randomized, controlled trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012,73(1):94–101. 8. Alletag MJ, Auerbach MA, Baum CR: Ketamine, propofol, and ketofol use for pediatric sedation. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012,28(12):1391–1395. 9. Andolfatto G, Willman E: A Prospective Case Series of Single-syringe Ketamine–Propofol (Ketofol) for Emergency Department Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Adults. Acad Emerg Med. 2011,18(3):237–245. 10. Imani H, Baniadam A, Mosallanejad B, Shabani S: Comparison of required induction dose, induction and recovery characteristics, and cardiorespiratory effects of co-administration of ketofol with diazepam and midazolam in healthy dogs. Iran J Vet Med. 2016,10(3):181–190. 11. Rastabi HI, Baniadam A, Ronagh A, Khajeh A, Kamyabnia M: Comparison of intraocular pressure, tear production and cardiorespiratory variables before and after induction of anaesthesia with either propofol or ketofol in dogs premedicated with midazolam. Vet Med 2018, 63(6):271–278. 12. Matsubara LM, Oliva VN, Gabas DT, Oliveira GC, Cassetari ML: Effect of lidocaine on the minimum alveolar concentration of sevofurane in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 2009,36(5):407–413. 13. Valverde A, Doherty TJ, Hernández J, Davies W: Effect of lidocaine on the minimum alveolar concentration of isofurane in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 2004,31(4):264–271. 14. Steagall PV, Neto FJT, Minto BW, Campagnol D, Corrêa MA: Evaluation of the isofurane-sparing effects of lidocaine and fentanyl during surgery in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006,229(4):522–527. 15. Ueyama Y, Lerche P, Eppler CM, Muir III WW: Effects of intravenous administration of perzinfotel, fentanyl, and a combination of both drugs on the minimum alveolar concentration of isofurane in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2009,70(12):1459–1464. 16. Reilly S, Seddighi R, Egger CM, Rohrbach BW, Doherty TJ, Qu W, Johnson JR: The effect of fentanyl on the end-tidal sevofurane concentration needed to prevent motor movement in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2013,40(3):290–296.

Page 16/19 17. Bennett KJ, Seddighi R, Moorhead KA, Messenger K, Cox SK, Sun X, Pasloske K, Pypendop BH, Doherty TJ: Effect of fentanyl on the induction dose and minimum infusion rate of alfaxalone preventing movement in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2019,46(2):173–181. 18. Davis CA, Seddighi R, Cox SK, Sun X, Egger CM, Doherty TJ: Effect of fentanyl on the induction dose and minimum infusion rate of propofol preventing movement in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2017,44(4):727–737. 19. Kuusela E, Vainio O, Kaistinen A, Kobylin S, Raekallio M: Sedative, analgesic, and cardiovascular effects of levomedetomidine alone and in combination with dexmedetomidine in dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2001,62(4):616–621. 20. Kuusela E, Raekallio M, Väisänen M, Mykkänen K, Ropponen H, Vainio O: Comparison of medetomidine and dexmedetomidine as premedicants in dogs undergoing propofol-isofurane anesthesia. Am J Vet Res. 2001,62(7):1073–1080. 21. Pascoe PJ, Raekallio M, Kuusela E, McKusick B, Granholm M: Changes in the minimum alveolar concentration of isofurane and some cardiopulmonary measurements during three continuous infusion rates of dexmedetomidine in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2006,33(2):97–103. 22. Vickery RG, Sheridan BC, Segal IS, Maze M: Anesthetic and hemodynamic effects of the stereoisomers of medetomidine, an alpha 2-adrenergic agonist, in halothane-anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg. 1988,67(7):611–615. 23. Ebner LS, Lerche P, Bednarski RM, Hubbell JA: Effect of dexmedetomidine, morphine-lidocaine- ketamine, and dexmedetomidine-morphine-lidocaine-ketamine constant rate infusions on the minimum alveolar concentration of isofurane and bispectral index in dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2013,74(7):963–970. 24. Gutierrez-Blanco E, Victoria‐Mora JM, Ibancovichi‐Camarillo JA, Sauri‐Arceo CH, Bolio‐González ME, Acevedo‐Arcique CM, Marin‐Cano G, Steagall PV: Postoperative analgesic effects of either a constant rate infusion of fentanyl, lidocaine, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, or the combination lidocaine‐ketamine‐dexmedetomidine after ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2015,42(3):309–318. 25. Himes JR, DiFazio CA, Burney RG: Effects of lidocaine on the anesthetic requirements for nitrous oxide and halothane. Anesthesiology. 1977,47(5):437–440. 26. Wilson J, Doherty TJ, Egger CM, Fidler A, Cox S, Rohrbach B: Effects of intravenous lidocaine, ketamine, and the combination on the minimum alveolar concentration of sevofurane in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2008,35(4):289–296. 27. Murrell JC, White KL, Johnson CB, Taylor PM, Doherty TJ, Waterman-Pearson AE: Investigation of the EEG effects of intravenous lidocaine during halothane anaesthesia in ponies. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2005,32(4):212–221. 28. Smith LJ, Bentley E, Shih A, Miller PE: Systemic lidocaine infusion as an analgesic for intraocular surgery in dogs: a pilot study. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2004,31(1):53–63.

Page 17/19 29. Weitz JD, Foster S, Waugaman W, Katz R, Bloor B: Anesthetic and hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine during isofurane anesthesia in a canine model. Nurse Anesth. 1991,2(1):19–27. 30. Bloor BC, Frankland M, Alper G, Raybould D, Weitz J, Shurtliff M: Hemodynamic and sedative effects of dexmedetomidine in dog. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1992,263(2):690–697. 31. Lervik A, Raszplewicz J, Ranheim B, Solbak S, Toverud SF, Haga HA: Dexmedetomidine or fentanyl? Cardiovascular stability and analgesia during propofol-ketamine total intravenous anaesthesia in experimental pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2018,45(3):295–308. 32. Henao-Guerrero N, Riccó CH: Comparison of the cardiorespiratory effects of a combination of ketamine and propofol, propofol alone, or a combination of ketamine and diazepam before and after induction of anesthesia in dogs sedated with acepromazine and oxymorphone. Am J Vet Res. 2014,75(3):231–239. 33. Seliskar A, Nemec A, Roskar T, Butinar J: Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol or propofol/ketamine in spontaneously breathing dogs premedicated with medetomidine. Vet Rec. 2007,160(3):85. 34. Tweed W, Minuck M, Mymin D: Circulatory responses to ketamine anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1972,37(6):613–619. 35. Arndt JO, Mikat M, Parasher C: Fentanyl's analgesic, respiratory, and cardiovascular actions in relation to dose and plasma concentration in unanesthetized dogs. Anesthesiology. 1984,61(4):355– 361. 36. Hogue CW, Bowdle TA, O'Leary C, Duncalf D, Miguel R, Pitts M, Streisand J, Kirvassilis G, Jamerson B, McNeal S: A multicenter evaluation of total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol for elective inpatient surgery. Anesth Analg. 1996,83(2):279–285. 37. Murrell JC, Hellebrekers LJ: Medetomidine and dexmedetomidine: a review of cardiovascular effects and antinociceptive properties in the dog. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2005,32(3):117–127. 38. Mair AR, Pawson P, Courcier E, Flaherty D: A comparison of the effects of two different doses of ketamine used for co-induction of anaesthesia with a target‐controlled infusion of propofol in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2009,36(6):532–538. 39. Blouin RT, Seifert HA, Babenco HD, Conard PF, Gross JB: Propofol depresses the hypoxic ventilatory response during conscious sedation and isohypercapnia. Anesthesiology. 1993,79(6):1177–1182. 40. Hamza J, Ecoffey C, Gross JB: Ventilatory response to CO2 following intravenous ketamine in children. Anesthesiology. 1989,70(3):422–425. 41. Lamont LA, Mathews KS: Opioids, nonsteriodal antiinfammatories, and analgesic adjuvants. In: Lumb & Jones’ Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia. edn. Edited by Tranquilli WJ, Thurmon JC, Grimm KA. Ames, USA: Blackwell; 2007: 241–271. 42. Gutierrez-Blanco E, Victoria‐Mora JM, Ibancovichi‐Camarillo JA, Sauri‐Arceo CH, Bolio‐González ME, Acevedo‐Arcique CM, Marin‐Cano G, Steagall PV: Evaluation of the isofurane‐sparing effects of fentanyl, lidocaine, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, or the combination lidocaine‐ketamine‐ dexmedetomidine during ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2013,40(6):599–609.

Page 18/19 43. Bufalari A, Di Meo A, Nannarone S, Padua S, Adami C: Fentanyl or sufentanil continuous infusion during isofurane anaesthesia in dogs: clinical experiences. Vet Res Commun. 2007,31(1):277–280. 44. Keating SC, Kerr CL, Valverde A, Johnson RJ, McDonell WN: Cardiopulmonary effects of intravenous fentanyl infusion in dogs during isofurane anesthesia and with concurrent acepromazine or dexmedetomidine administration during anesthetic recovery. Am J Vet Res. 2013, 74(5):672–682. 45. Pattinson KT: Opioids and the control of respiration. Br J Anaesth. 2008,100(6):747–758. 46. Rankin DC: sedatives and tranquilizers. In: Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia, The Fifth Edition of Lumb and Jones. 5 edn. Edited by Grimm KA, Lamont LA, Tranquilli WJ, Green SA, Robertson SA. Pondichery, India: Wiley Blackwell; 2015:196–206.

Supplementary Files

This is a list of supplementary fles associated with this preprint. Click to download.

Data.pdf

Page 19/19